This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Selke (river) → Selke — The river is the primary topic (see Selke (disambiguation), because it is a notable central European river and tourist destination, it is the only topic with the name "Selke" and all the current redirects to Selke refer to the river. Bermicourt (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the dab page exists at Selke (Selke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) which the nominator conveniently overwrote with a redirect without moving its contents to the new dab page that conveniently has no history of other uses that used to be around. And I think the primary usage in Canada is the Selke Trophy of the NHL, not the river. The current redirect only redirects here because the nominator made it a redirect before making this nomination, making that a disingenuous reason. 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Nom vote). The unregistered user above fails to point out that every single one of the redirects referred to the river and not one to the Canadian ice hockey trophy for the best defensive forward. The river existed for centuries before the guy (whose family was probably named after it) and will continue to exist long after he is forgotten. And the new dab page links to a much fuller list of people with surname Selke with all the original links plus several new ones I added from German wiki together with lots more information. Check it out. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the English-speaking world, according to Google it is the NHL Trophy which is referred to frequently as just "Selke" which is much greater in usage than the river. From Google news I see no hits for the river, but several for the trophy. While a Google news archive search shows no hits from the river either (in the first 100), but several for the trophy (calling it just the "Selke") . Google scholar shows no hits for the river or the trophy. While Google book search also shows no hits for the river, but some for the trophy (in the first 100). 65.94.45.167 (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GOOGLEHITS under "Notability fallacies". "Selke Trophy" is a reasonable redirect; "Selke" was never a redirect to the trophy before and shouldn't be now. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being as there are no google hits for the river in many of the searches, there seems little in the way of notability for the river. And "Selke" wasn't a redirect until you overwrote it, so that argument is pointless, it was a disambiguation page previously. This current river article is a {{onesource}} article, so it isn't meeting WP:NOTABILITY guidelines currently. 65.94.45.167 (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you don't like the nom, 65.94.45.167, but please don't misrepresent my actions. The original dab page just had: the river and its railway, 3 people and 2 trophies. Only the river is named "Selke". I moved the people to list of people with surname Selke in line with accepted Wiki practice and added more information about them and more links. Then created a new dab page, properly labelled and linked. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The river is clearly not the primary use of the name here. I would argue the trophy is, however since there is discrepancy on to which is the primary use leaving it as a disambiguation page is the best course of action. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; none of the other items are just called "Selke". The trophy appears to be always "Selke Trophy" at minimum. PowersT 13:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Were this discussion to take place on the German Wikipedia, I might not think the way I do, but this isn't the German Wikipedia; it's the English Wikipedia. Raw Google hits for "Selke River" - 290. Raw Google hits for "Selke Trophy" - 27,100. Raw Google hits for Frank Selke, the fellow after whom the trophy is named - 20,500. However the nom wishes to discredit the Google result, it's rather hard to scoff at results a hundred times more common. Beyond that, in taking note of Bermicourt's arguments, first off, I'm unaware of any policies or guidelines giving prominence to a subject out of alleged seniority or antiquity. Secondly, it's well established that on the English Wikipedia, in naming articles, in disambiguation and in redirects, the usage most common to English-speaking readers takes precedence. Finally, to take such speculation at face value, should this relatively modest river (at 64 km, there are dozens of more prominent rivers in Germany) indeed be well-known centuries after Frank Selke is forgotten, I rather expect we can leave the matter in the hands of Wikipedians of the 25th century to seek a then-current consensus. Ravenswing 18:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because item A is more popular or more often sought than item B doesn't mean that A is necessarily the primary topic for a particular title. The question is not "do more people want to read about the river than about the trophy"; the question is "of the people who are looking for something titled simply 'Selke', are they more likely to be looking for the river or for the trophy"? Simple Google searches do not resolve that issue in the slightest. PowersT 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear ... are you genuinely suggesting that Google searching doesn't reflect the frequency which people try to find things out? Whoa. (deep breath) Alright, taking your comment at face value, if you don't believe that an internationally recognized search standard registering that a certain subject is being searched a hundred times more often than another one is valid, what metric do you propose in its place? Traffic stats, perhaps? Alright. Selke (river) has been viewed, prior to this month, 53 times this calendar year. The Frank J. Selke article has been viewed 657 times in November alone.[1] The article for the Frank J. Selke Trophy has been viewed over three thousand times in November alone. [2] Even the article on the junior league trophy named after Frank Selke has been viewed over 180 times this past month. I'm afraid that beyond a "Of course geography is more important than mere hockey" argument, I can't imagine any measure making the river article in the same galaxy of notability as Frank Selke. Ravenswing 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I opposed the move, even if the trophy isn't the most likely search term (which admitedly I think it is). Then the best case scenerio would be to leave Selke as a disambig page so that no matter which of the two they are searching for they will be able to get there from this page. Clearly Selke should not just be the river. I have a hard time finding any reason why it would be. This is more a case on if Selke should be a dab page or a redirect to the trophy in my view. It may be a North American centric view, but almost always is the trophy referred to as just the Selke in every day common use on the radio/tv etc...rarely do they attach trophy. -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right hardly anyone in the rest of world has heard of Frank Selke or his trophy. And BTW google only shows the no of pages hits. Even that's highly suspect: one search produced 300 hits from just 2 original articles, the rest were copies. And then there's the non-English hits... and the vast body of literature not uploaded to the Internet. Anyway, I still don't see why Frank J. Selke Trophy competes with Selke - it's already well disambiguated! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English hits are irrelevant; this is the English Wikipedia, and places greater stress on the usages familiar to English-language speakers. As far as "the vast body of literature not uploaded to the Internet," what is your basis for believing that the river is more heavily featured in it, and in greater depth, than the hockey executive? We also await your rebuttal of the traffic stats, where the Selke Trophy article had more page views yesterday[3] than the river article had in the year to date up until December 4th. Ravenswing 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well google would disagree. That being said, this is English Wikipedia, and we go by what is most common in English usage. Secondly the many people in both North American and European countries where hockey is played heavily which is the majority of Europe would have a pretty good chance at knowing the trophy whereas, hardly anyone outside Germany and I would even bet inside Germany would know the Selke river since its a very small river. -DJSasso (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any examples of the trophy being called just "Selke" in reliable sources? PowersT 22:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ravenswing, in fact you completely missed my point. As I said, the question is not "which of these articles is most wanted by readers", but rather "which of these articles is most wanted by readers searching specifically for 'Selke'". I trust you understand the difference, and why a simple Google search is insufficient for resolving the latter question. PowersT 22:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To which I can only answer that you have no basis for your inference that more people want to find out about the river beyond unsupported conjecture. For my part, given the extreme disparity in the traffic stats, I believe I can confidently claim that someone typing in "Selke" is far more likely to be looking for either of the trophies or the executive than for the river. Ravenswing 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that necessarily follows. George W. Bush got 20 times as many hits as shrub in November, but that doesn't mean the former president is the primary topic for "Shrub"! PowersT 22:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No but if you compared like and like. I would think an argument could be made that he was the primary topic of "bush". -DJSasso (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. I'd like to see you even try to make that argument. PowersT 02:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is such a baroque straw-man that I hardly know how to respond within the bounds of civility. Ravenswing 01:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a straw man? You know that Dubya is sometimes called "Shrub", right? PowersT 02:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has been handled correctly with Selke being a disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. The "river" isn't big enough to be listed at List of rivers of Germany or be drawn in File:Elbe Einzugsgebiet.png. It flows into the Bode (river). I'm actually having trouble finding comparable waterways (in terms of length and watershed) that I'm familiar with that are not labelled "creeks". If it was anywhere near a size where it would be considered a major river in any subjective definition than, yeah, it would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but that's not the case. ccwaters (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Folks, it's clear that my proposal to call a river by its name is generating real passion amongst the Canadian ice-hockey fraternity and also a degree of hostility that I had not intended! I therefore withdraw my proposal and ask that this discussion is wound up. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
